• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you believe in personal freedom and responsibility?

Is it the proper role of government to pass laws to protect you from yourself?

  • Yes, if the government passed laws to protect me from myself, it then protects everyone else too.

    Votes: 4 6.7%
  • No, people are responsible for the consequences of their own actions.

    Votes: 43 71.7%
  • IDK/Other

    Votes: 13 21.7%

  • Total voters
    60
So many who argue about personal responsibility proceed to ignore responsibility to each other. We all should be held accountable for our willful mistakes, but that includes the willful choice not to act, and accountability does not necessarily equate to punishment. We would not need a government to protect us if we would stop trying to prey on each other.
 
So many who argue about personal responsibility proceed to ignore responsibility to each other. We all should be held accountable for our willful mistakes, but that includes the willful choice not to act, and accountability does not necessarily equate to punishment. We would not need a government to protect us if we would stop trying to prey on each other.

This is cryptic and kind of reveals your discomfort with personal responsibility, presumably because your political philosophy is so strongly welfare-oriented that you cannot stomach people having to take responsibility (even painfully) for their own maladaptive choices. Why else would you be trying to broadbrush people "who argue about personal responsibility?"

When there is trade, both parties are seeking to get something they value more than the thing they're giving up for it. Across the board, this is universally true about trade, which includes buying things. Beyond that, naturally, they're seeking to maximize what they're getting. All parties engaged in trade seek this. Some are more skilled at it than others. You cannot blame them for doing this, anymore than you can blame NBA players for trying to score baskets when they're on offense (even when they're winning).
 
So magical non-insurance options will appear?

Nobody said that. Things go better when you discuss what people say, not what they do not say.

Free Market = more options.

I'd think a 'Libertarian' would understand that.
 
Right up until they go to the emergency or operating room, can't pay for their treatment, and someone else has to foot the bill. Being responsible for your decisions is great - as long as you and you alone are responsible for the consequences. That simply isn't what happens in reality.

Yeah, we need to get rid of that whole 'go to the er for free' thing as well. Thanks for reminding me.
 
Nobody said that. Things go better when you discuss what people say, not what they do not say.

Free Market = more options.

I'd think a 'Libertarian' would understand that.
Jesus ****ing christ, you're trolling now I swear to god. I've told you 15 times I don't want the government in this. However, also like I've explained 15 god damn times, you're already paying for other people's poor health decisions in your insurance premiums.

If you have absolutely anything to rebut this statement go ahead. If you're going to keep whining about something I never said, we're done.


Actually, I wasn't referring to insurance at all. Everyone ought to have it and if they do something stupid that requires medical attention, then yes, everyone who bought into the insurance already knows what they were buying into and it's funded by the group. The stupider people probably weigh heavier on the group, but they ought to be charged more for having bad habits in the first place.
Sorting out what is healthy and unhealthy is a lot more complicated than you imagine. We all make hundreds of decisions a day based on our health, and there isn't anybody standing behind us to evaluate us. Over 50% of our population is morbidly obese, and yes, you're paying for all of them in your premium.

It's not complicated at all. If you caused your own problem, you pay for the solution or you drop dead. Your fault, your problem. It cleans out the gene pool.

So you advocate for the "no-insurance" solution? Otherwise you will be paying for other people's ****ty decisions. Why should people pay for 300 lb fatties and not pot smokers? Nobody is forcing you to have insurance. Why don't you grow a pair and cancel your health insurance. You talk like you want everyone to pay for themselves, but will you actually do it?

Which sounds nice in principle but in the emergency room it's hard as hell to determine just what is the cause of a particular emergency or ailment when the surgeon is trying his damnedest just to save a life. How do we make a distinction between people who end up on the operating table because they made stupid decisions and people who end up there because they simply got the short end of the stick?
This is what I tried to explain to our little kitty cat friend. He thinks there's some kind of magic scanner that can tell "Oh, you ate too many doritos and smoked too many cigarettes, so we're cutting off your insurance."
 
Last edited:
The proper role of government is such:

- Maintain a justice system to prevent/seek retribution for coercion/violence between citizens
- Organize national defense
- Maintain the few programs that would be near impossible in the free market, IE: public roads, radio spectrum division, etc.

The government has no role in legislating non-violent morality, or telling people what they should or shouldn't consume. It's our lives, our bodies, our decisions.

I agree with most of your positions except I would add two more responsibilites (which is why I am libertarian-LEFT).

Public Education grades 1 -12
Public Health

I think government should be responsible for maintaining a basic level of education because I believe only an educated population has the capacity to remain truly informed before making decisions. Otherwise, education level would be based on individual wealth; leading to dominance, repression, and rebellion (as shown by past history).

I support government health care because the State should be responsible for maintaining a baseline of health to prevent plagues etc., and provide medical protection since most citizens simply cannot afford (personal insurance coverage) it on their own. I strongly support a system similar to Canada or the UK. Doctors benefit well under such systems, pharmaceutical companies still make reasonable profits, and only insurance companies lose out.
 
I agree with most of your positions except I would add two more responsibilites (which is why I am libertarian-LEFT).

Public Education grades 1 -12
Public Health

I think government should be responsible for maintaining a basic level of education because I believe only an educated population has the capacity to remain truly informed before making decisions. Otherwise, education level would be based on individual wealth; leading to dominance, repression, and rebellion (as shown by past history).

I support government health care because the State should be responsible for maintaining a baseline of health to prevent plagues etc., and provide medical protection since most citizens simply cannot afford (personal insurance coverage) it on their own. I strongly support a system similar to Canada or the UK. Doctors benefit well under such systems, pharmaceutical companies still make reasonable profits, and only insurance companies lose out.
I can agree, but both systems should be opt-out. If you want to take those tax dollars and get private health care or private education, you should be able to do that. In Germany, for instance, if you don't want to be in the public health care system, you can opt-out and go private. This falls in with number #3 on my list. If the local private education or health services are inadequate, there should always be a government option.

I don't know why we don't do that. It's a win for both sides, everybody gets what they want. I think the problem comes from the people that believe the only way such a program could work is by use of force and coercion.
 
I can agree, but both systems should be opt-out. If you want to take those tax dollars and get private health care or private education, you should be able to do that. In Germany, for instance, if you don't want to be in the public health care system, you can opt-out and go private. This falls in with number #3 on my list. If the local private education or health services are inadequate, there should always be a government option.

I don't know why we don't do that. It's a win for both sides, everybody gets what they want. I think the problem comes from the people that believe the only way such a program could work is by use of force and coercion.

That's reasonable, except I would require annual proof (in the education area) that you are actually providing your children with an equivalent level of education. Perhaps annual state run testing, along with receipts for private school or documents showing work done while home-schooled. Failure to provide satisfactory equivalence would negate your opt-out option and require re-entry into the State system.
 
That's reasonable, except I would require annual proof (in the education area) that you are actually providing your children with an equivalent level of education. Perhaps annual state run testing, along with receipts for private school or documents showing work done while home-schooled. Failure to provide satisfactory equivalence would negate your opt-out option and require re-entry into the State system.

Totally agree. They still need to be able to pass all of the same standards as public students.
 
This is cryptic and kind of reveals your discomfort with personal responsibility, presumably because your political philosophy is so strongly welfare-oriented that you cannot stomach people having to take responsibility (even painfully) for their own maladaptive choices. Why else would you be trying to broadbrush people "who argue about personal responsibility?"

Because the philosophy that informs this discussion is one essentially built on selfishness, and that's disgusting. The gist of a "personal responsibility" argument is always about blaming people for having bad luck. It's not really about people who have made bad choices. It's about claiming that bad choices brought about unfortunate people's bad luck. That's an illusory way of making yourself and your own selfishness feel better, to pretend that you deserve the good things you have and that others who don't have those things deserve not to.

My philosophy is only "welfare-oriented" if community and teamwork are dirty words, which they are in a fundamentally selfish philosophy. The idea that we sink or swim together, by working together, and sharing in the rewards and sacrifices of that work, doesn't allow one person to rise up by abusing others. And instead of looking down on people who have it worse than we do, we have a responsibility to them to help them up, just as they would have to us were our roles reversed.
 
I am astonished at the degree people demand the government control people to the finest detail. Of course, that also means demanding the government control you - ie protect you from yourself.

Way back at the start of this country, a French philosopher named Torqueville toured the USA marveling at this new concept of uneducated people running their own government. While he saw this new concept of almost unrestricted personal freedom as amazing, he predicted it would not last. In his opinion that due to human nature, people would vote to outlaw anything a person does not like or do. Since there is almost nothing everyone agrees on, then ultimately almost everything would be regulated, outlaws or restricted. In short, he predicted Americans would become the most regulated, watched and constrained people with endless new laws and regulations.

What is your opinion of the proper role of government?

Republican government (the belief system, not the political party) endows its citizens with greater freedoms in the anticipation they will be responsible enough to keep society from slowly grinding its way toward ruin. That includes people with money and power helping those without it in anyway and every way they can, not just through government. The Founding Fathers were very self conscious about this, with many of them losing money or going bankrupt in their efforts to form a republican government. George Washington would not accept a salary even when his plantation was trending down economically.

Whenever it comes to trying to make ends meet on any specific issue, the only demographic in the United States that consistently makes any compromises or takes on any burdens is the middle class. Everyone else thinks they should get every scrap they have and more.

My response is broadly the same as the response of tyrants in the Roman Republic: people who can't take the responsibility along with their freedom can't be trusted with either.
 
Last edited:
Jesus ****ing christ, you're trolling now I swear to god. I've told you 15 times I don't want the government in this. However, also like I've explained 15 god damn times, you're already paying for other people's poor health decisions in your insurance premiums.

You do not read what is written, which is clearly obvious. Yes, we pay for it now, but in a free market options will arise where it is far less likely you are paying for other peoples bad decisions. PERIOD. Why you can't not grasp the future is a mystery, but clearly you do not get or understand the idea of a free market which brings to questions your chosen lean.
 
So you advocate for the "no-insurance" solution? Otherwise you will be paying for other people's ****ty decisions. Why should people pay for 300 lb fatties and not pot smokers? Nobody is forcing you to have insurance. Why don't you grow a pair and cancel your health insurance. You talk like you want everyone to pay for themselves, but will you actually do it?

Having insurance is part of being responsible IMO. If you choose not to have insurance then you'd better be prepared to pay for it out of your own pocket because society doesn't owe either the 300lb fatties or the pot smokers one red cent.
 
Having insurance is part of being responsible IMO. If you choose not to have insurance then you'd better be prepared to pay for it out of your own pocket because society doesn't owe either the 300lb fatties or the pot smokers one red cent.

Uh, ok... Is somebody here suggesting everybody pay for the uninsured through the government? I know I didn't. Here I am talking about personal freedom and responsibility, you know, the topic of the thread, and you're off on health care reform.

You do not read what is written, which is clearly obvious. Yes, we pay for it now, but in a free market options will arise where it is far less likely you are paying for other peoples bad decisions. PERIOD. Why you can't not grasp the future is a mystery, but clearly you do not get or understand the idea of a free market which brings to questions your chosen lean.

Hrm... so the guy who agreed with you 15 times that the government shouldn't be in health care is somehow betraying his libertarian lean?

You do know that insurance agencies are generally non-governmental right? That's why I said "If you have health insurance, you're already paying for other's mistakes."

So by all means, keep calling me a bad libertarian because I don't want the government in health care.
 
The government has three legitimate functions.

1) Providing for the common defense

2) Insuring that the rights of citizens aren't violated

3) Insuring that people and companies are assessed the true cost of their actions - which is really an extension of 2.
 
Hrm... so the guy who agreed with you 15 times that the government shouldn't be in health care is somehow betraying his libertarian lean?

You do know that insurance agencies are generally non-governmental right? That's why I said "If you have health insurance, you're already paying for other's mistakes."

So by all means, keep calling me a bad libertarian because I don't want the government in health care.

You are not connecting the dots. You are, like many on the left, stuck on one point and seem to not be able to move past that point of discussion.

It's almost like you have remembered the 'party' lines, but are unable to move on from that in to what difference would occur if those goals were reached.
 
You are not connecting the dots. You are, like many on the left, stuck on one point and seem to not be able to move past that point of discussion.

It's almost like you have remembered the 'party' lines, but are unable to move on from that in to what difference would occur if those goals were reached.

I'm so confused. Are you intentionally not addressing me?

Here is what I say:
- Government shouldn't be in healthcare. (For the 16th ****ing time)
- You are paying for other's health care mistakes when you buy private health insurance. (You've never addressed this. If it isn't true, prove it.)

This is all I've said over and over again. Please, tell me how I'm a lefty communist marxist.
 
This is all I've said over and over again.

Yes, I have already pointed out that you are repeating yourself. Why you can you not move on to imagine a time when government is out of healthcare, there are many more options available in terms of health care from specific insurance to cash business with local doctors?

That is the point I am discussing, and how with more options that can more specifically be tailored to your lifestyle, the odds are much better that you will not be paying for others, or at least not nearly as much. Add in a removal of the whole thing about ER's having to take anyone... change it from them writing off loss to actually requiring payment from those that use it, if they don't pay, no future admittance... You start to rebuild towards personal responsibility for ones actions/decisions, and less of everyone else having to suffer the idiots of the world.
 
In regards to the poll question, no, it is not the government's job to make laws that 'protect us from ourselves.' I think that personal responsibility plays a major role. However, in regards to personal responsibility on a general level, I think that personal responsibility is important, but that some people can go quite overboard with that mindset.
 
We have moved so far from personal responsibility it is a damn shame. Government has overextended itself into all sorts of areas it has no business.

Then name one specific area...
or I will....
dental care
For 50 years I did not take good care of my teeth...I went years without visiting a dentist....
No, the piper must be paid.
And I am not the only one...Should dental care be included in the ACA ?
Should dental care be affordable for all ?
Yes, I agree with the responsibility premise, but many of us are not that responsible
And , I question the statement " .......government has no business..."
The vote was "I do not know - other".
 
The proper role of government is such:

- Maintain a justice system to prevent/seek retribution for coercion/violence between citizens
- Organize national defense
- Maintain the few programs that would be near impossible in the free market, IE: public roads, radio spectrum division, etc.

The government has no role in legislating non-violent morality, or telling people what they should or shouldn't consume. It's our lives, our bodies, our decisions.

Look around - are we doing a good job handling our own lives ?
sloth
obesity
health issues
illiteracy
crime
self hatred
...................................
The thing is - how can government best solve these problems..
education ?
or twenty million warning lables...?
 
Look around - are we doing a good job handling our own lives ?
sloth
obesity
health issues
illiteracy
crime
self hatred
...................................
The thing is - how can government best solve these problems..
education ?
or twenty million warning lables...?

People are going to make their decisions. The government coming in and playing mommy isn't the answer. You are, and always have been, responsible for your own actions.

Education and strong laws requiring companies be forthwright about their product's ingredients would go a long way.
 
For 50 years I did not take good care of my teeth...I went years without visiting a dentist....
No, the piper must be paid.

And it is your responsibility to pay that piper, not that of anyone else.

Yes, I agree with the responsibility premise, but many of us are not that responsible

That is your problem and your problem alone. Enough big bills, perhaps you will learn.

And , I question the statement " .......government has no business..."

Please point out to me where in the Constitution it says the government has the ability to determine what sort of insurance you buy, to force you to have it, to control how much a doctor can charge, or to take from one group of people to help pay for your treatment.
 
Look around - are we doing a good job handling our own lives ?
sloth
obesity
health issues
illiteracy
crime
self hatred
...................................
The thing is - how can government best solve these problems..
education ?
or twenty million warning lables...?
But these are all government issues..

Sloth= no jobs

Obesity=government lack of control usually due to them being paid mega-bucks just to shut up..

Health issues = see above..

Illiteracy = crap teachers..

Crime = lack of hope..

Self Hatred = anger at the way you were manipulated, and churned out of a school that you hoped would set you on the right path..
 
Because the philosophy that informs this discussion is one essentially built on selfishness, and that's disgusting.

Self-interest is a fundamentally natural trait of living things. Living things tend to want to survive and thrive. Therefore their behaviors are inherently competitive. You need to shake yourself of this idea that something fundamentally natural is "disgusting."

The gist of a "personal responsibility" argument is always about blaming people for having bad luck.

No, it's about recognizing that the only way to learn and grow is to notice and acknowledge that our own personal actions have personal consequences (naturally), and that if we don't like those consequences, we can change our actions.

It's not really about people who have made bad choices.

How is it not? Of course it is.

It's about claiming that bad choices brought about unfortunate people's bad luck. That's an illusory way of making yourself and your own selfishness feel better, to pretend that you deserve the good things you have and that others who don't have those things deserve not to.

You're straw manning.

My philosophy is only "welfare-oriented" if community and teamwork are dirty words, which they are in a fundamentally selfish philosophy. The idea that we sink or swim together, by working together, and sharing in the rewards and sacrifices of that work, doesn't allow one person to rise up by abusing others.

It also doesn't allow any person to choose if they want to be associated with all those schemes. If a person wants nothing to do with you or your ideas, he should be able to opt out, foregoing both the work/sacrifice as well as the rewards. You know what forced work is, right?

And instead of looking down on people who have it worse than we do, we have a responsibility to them to help them up, just as they would have to us were our roles reversed.

It's up to each person to decide if they feel morally obliged to help others, and how they think it's most appropriate to try to do so. You can't legislate a sense of morality into people. You can only restrict their freedom or property for your own ends.
 
Back
Top Bottom